NOTE: This is more or less a placeholder for a debate that will hopefully be fleshed out over the coming weeks. We urge all readers to carefully consider these two options for later comment!
I recently fell into a conversation with interesting, deep debate potential; it could perhaps be summed up by the following questions. (Out of fairness, I have sought to avoid relatively loaded ways of presenting this dilemma.[1])
- Should one search for hard truthss or dwell in (what many people deem to be, at least) the relative bliss of ignorance?
- Does/should the ignorance is bliss principle supercede humanity’s search for [relatively objective] truth?
- Should humanity seek truth, even when the discoveries may not lead to happiness?
- Is the avoidance of potentially harsh realities — aka ignorance — recommended in order to prevent personal challenges or difficult mental adjustments?
Where might the world be if everyone subscribed to a manner of living guided by the ignorance is bliss principle?
The honest answer is predictable:
Living according to the ignorance is bliss principle would have a list of pros and a list of cons.
In many ways (were ignorance to rule), the world might be a much better place … albeit a far more superstitious and less technically advanced one. IMHO, science and business would be anathema and religion would rule the day in a world that sought to dwell in ignorance rather than seek the truth.
Perhaps there would be less pollution, less degradation of the environment…
However, there would probably be far more conflict between warring factions of incompatible superstitions/religions. The vast majority of people would believe whatever they were taught in youth and then carry it forward into adulthood, teaching the same to their children.
Science would be minimized at best, would it not?
Strength would rule.
Bass-ackwards in many ways, progressive in others…???
NOTES
[1] Loaded version(s) of the same question
Should we seek truth or happiness? (For most, off the top of the head at least, the more obvious answer to this question would be happiness.)
Is the application of 
A couple of weeks ago, I accepted a very kind invitation to serve, at minimum, as a warm body at an unspecified type of gathering at a local 
And of course there could be many other possible reasons one might wish to participate.
I have since decided to abstain from regular attendance of this religious meeting for heartfelt personal reasons. (Those reasons are probably obvious to anyone who has read much of the content here on the Search for Truth blog.) Listening to the other men revealed that the group focuses primarily on their shared supernatural religious beliefs as opposed to what we would consider to be a more 
It should also be stated for the record that the meeting’s environment was generally friendly, loving, and accepting of all present (including yours truly). In addition to consuming most of the available coffee, I enjoyed meeting new people as well as reconnecting with those I already knew. There’s always a sense of togetherness, belonging, and fellowship in situations where people bare their souls in often brutally frank ways. Hearing men describe some of their challanges and successes is always affirming and encouraging, and I feel this is universally true — apart from which religion or spiritual path one chooses to embrace (if any). 
One young fellow at the meeting opined that belief in his religion is warranted because "science cannot expain the changing of the seasons". Some of the others merely nodded in implicit agreement, indicating either (A) A serious lack of basic scientific knowledge, or worse, (B) Willful complicity in perpetuating the ignorance of fellow believers in hopes of continued adherence to the given religion. (Had there been no nodding, I’d probably have written off the missing responses as a desire not to embarass our fellow man by correcting him in front of others… certainly a well-mannered approach!) Although the second point above — (B) willful complicy — was a bit of an exaggeration, many of us have experienced overt 
My decision not to be a weekly attendee at the Nashville 
I honestly feel my time and effort are better spent writing and promoting religion-independent spiritual material and encouraging interfaith tolerance, cross-cultural acceptance, nonviolence, open mindedness, and other teachings that seek to offer principled alternatives to the status quo of fundamentalism, as if rigid devotion to it were more important or helpful than love for all beings and environmental responsibility. Spreading [what we see as] inherently positive messages via the Search for Truth blog — however unpopular they may be with religious folks in certain parts of the country — increases access to content not found in 
church libraries where 
(We are all for carrying difficult messages in some cases, including delivering crucial lessons of environmental responsibility & stewardship, encouraging love for all beings, etc..) Pretending to believe things I don’t is out of the question, and this was part of what led to my leaving the church many years ago — despite the fact that staying the course and pretending to conform (as some church members prefer 
to do, per private conversations) would be far better for me socially, financially, and probably in other ways as well. Rich social activity is a hallmark of many happy lives, but some of us are not willing to abandon heartfelt principles, ignore spiritual truths, or conform at any cost (what some might call "selling our souls") merely to increase social standing, influence others’ opinions, procure jobs, etc. This sometimes feels too much like politics.
Overall, absolutely not; we support all genuinely tolerant, respectful worldviews while offering hopefully persuasive, thought-provoking, constructive criticism on 
I have to give [Jack] credit for [his] mental prowess. The stuff is brilliant; it just won’t lead to happiness, IMHO. It is those strong defenses that I am trying ([and] failing miserably) to penetrate with my criticism. [Jack has] every angle locked up pretty tight. I don’t care about the 
Like many other folks, Eric may have made a personal decision not to attribute high levels of priority or attention to 
Eric’s reluctance to address global issues with Jack is due primarily to differences in perspective, not necessarily to any deficiency in his or anyone else’s spiritual condition or religious beliefs. It is a virtual given that Eric’s views are rooted in a strong dedication to the 
What follows is certainly an exaggeration, but perhaps some readers believe that people like Copernicus, Siddhartha, and Einstein should have applied more effort to marriage and child-rearing, started Bible groups, or hung out with their buddies rather than pursuing their passions in the driven, balls-to-the-wall manner which helped to change the world and open eyes. Others may feel that life pursuits are meaningless unless one joins group A, is baptized in a supposedly correct fashion, chose the right religion, prays the ‘right’ way, subscribes to some sort of formal view highlighting the downside of any & all alcohol and drug use, or chants the name of a preferred deity during meditation.
Naturally, for a great many folks, complete abstinence from all mood-altering substances — no moderation allowed — is required, preferred, embraced, or even mandated for a wide variety of reasons. Complete and total abstinence from alcohol and drugs is a healthy lifestyle and is more often than not an extremely wise decision — so long as these personal opinions and preferences don’t evolve into rigid worldviews and aren’t employed as litmus tests in judging the spiritual fitness of others. (When such practices spill over into judgment and criticism of others, it sometimes seems to devolve into something akin to 
decrying the futile 
Eric’s dispproving implication seems to be that Jack’s activism for crucial causes is misdirected, moot, or meaningless and should be swiftly halted persuant to the development of some acceptable level or degree of family relations combined with a prescribed level of friendship with Jack’s cohorts. Perhaps — and who can truly say, apart from Eric himself — that prescribed level is represented by whatever Eric personally deems to be proper or right according to his own worldview, sometimes maybe without deep understanding or consideration of others’ passions or perspectives.
Of course, as previously stated, Eric (along with everyone else) has the right to believe whatever he wishes.
To be sure, people without cars, bank accounts, or strong career aspirations are often seen as being strange or out of touch in the West.
It’s entirely possible that ALL of the suggestions here at Search for Truth are in error. The truth is, we could be as wrong as anyone; the content here on this blog represents only our own opinions, which are just as certain to be as tainted by perspective as any other worldview or set of beliefs promulgated or pushed by any other group, church, site, or blog. 
Some of the more unfortunate, misguided criticisms of the content here within the pages of the Search for Truth blog claim that our writers and contributors have failed to experience the "above-average levels of spirituality" supposedly characteristic of certain commenters. While we always rejoice in what may very well be the enlightenment and/or amazing spiritual experiences and advancement of our readers, claims that our own contributors are in some way more spiritually deficient than that of the average devoted spiritual seeker/practitioner are probably unfounded… though criticisms are tolerated thanks to what is probably at least a mildly improved ability to NOT take any comment or criticism personally. (Nor should you, dear reader; whatever anyone says or does to you is based much more upon on their own personal issues than yours.)
It is important to note that the Search for Truth blog does not purport to lead readers to enlightenment, to the amazing peace which passes all understanding, or to any other uniquely high level of spiritual existence. Search for Truth — as clearly stated in the subtitle (Religious & political fundamentalism vs. reason, science, truth, 
Readers should first understand what we mean by religious fundamentalism. This includes belief systems such as literalist Christian fundamentalism, many versions of which insist that our universe is less than 10,000 years old… that a snake and a donkey have each literally spoken human words… that YOU, the reader — unless you share their exact beliefs and practices — are absolutely hellbound and a scourge of society. (We do NOT criticize any respectful, tolerant belief system.)
How or why would it be wrong for freethinking, rational folks to criticize such 
It would be quite impractical for us to preface every post with an exhaustive description of the principle of perspective, the difficulties inherent in human communication, the nature of words as only approximate representations or symbols of what is meant, the senstive nature of the subject matter, and the ultimate unknowability of what constitutes total reality, etc. (We will soon address a number of related ideas and concerns via a FAQ-type document.)
I’ve already wondered aloud as to how these kinds of messages (e.g., ideas similar to those promoted within the pages of Search for Truth) might be delivered if perfection or perfect adherence to a given message by the messenger were actually a prerequisite to the validity of said message. Were messenger perfection required, who’d be left to deliver any message, anytime, anywhere?
Firstly, it’s possible that the underlying intent or meaning of previous criticisms — those described earlier as being tainted by the logical fallacy known as ad hominem — was that this author is not merely imperfect, but rather so far off the mark of decency, or of such ill repute that any positive message coming from such a writer would be silly and ought to be rejected outright. 
The first possible issue would be a tough pill to swallow personally, but this imperfect blogger would certainly be willing to listen — that is, if specifics were given (as opposed to the mere making of assumptions due to hearsay, presumption, suspicion, club memberships, lack of certain club memberships, et al).
In limiting our content to the perfectly positive, however, we would certainly fail to reach that handful of Christian fundamentalists who strongly desire to hear a comparatively rational perspective and/or reasonably 
)